If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Should I post a list of scientific theories that have been proven mostly true? Relativity perhaps? or is that not complicated enough. Science is all about testing hypothesis and finding answers.

Income redistribution has been brought up several times. I certainly have not mentioned it and do not see how efforts to reduce CO2 will redistribute wealth. To the contrary, a case could be made that increasing the cost of carbon based fuels will disproportionately affect lower income people where the cost of goods would increase and since a much greater proportion of their income is for these goods compared to the wealthy.

A market-based cap and trade program reduced emissions responsible for acid rain 20+ years ago. It did not redistribute wealth. It also did not substantially increase electricity costs.

On the flip side, if temperatures warm, food systems are disrupted, and the 70+% of the world population that lives relatively close to sea level is displaced, what kind of standard of living will there be and will there be more or fewer people pulling the wagon then?

If you believe that not proving the theory false is MOSTLY proving it true, then you are right. To my knowledge, Einstein did not know of black holes. true Relativity holds up if it is comprised of mass so great that not even light can escape. But if it is ever found to be something different, then Relativity will surely have to be modified. Even today, scientists are constantly testing it. Don't you think that is good. Or should we just call such science "junk science"? As to it's complexity, I remember the theory of the ATOM in 1961 when I was a freshman in college. Is the theory the same today as in 1961? No it is not. Does that mean that the theory was false in 1961? You can make that judgement for yourself.

In 1961, I can't remember the exact number of elements that was supposed to comprise the universe but I do know that there are more today. Since these theories have had to be modified,does that mean that they are both more complicated than the THEORY of Relativity?

Maybe we could keep it simple. When does human life begin? When does it end? Simple? Maybe, but we STILL don't have a FACTUAL answer. When I went to college, one was taught to QUESTION, to CHALLENGE, to BE SKEPTICAL. That was the basic precept of science. Now today we talk about "junk science", "end of discussion", theory is now to be taken as FACT, discussion not allowed.

As to income redistribution, do you not call corporate welfare(solar and wind production and purchasing, ect), food stamps, student loans, housing subsities, heating subsities, ect, income redistribution? You even have a thread talking about the distribution of income. In a market based capitolistic system, people have the right to FREELY exchange their doods and serivces. Income is just a medium of exchange to facilitate that RIGHT. Yet you seem to speak of it as if income distribution is something other than that.

Climate change will pose sharp risks to the world’s food supply in coming decades, potentially undermining crop production and driving up prices at a time when the demand for food is expected to soar, scientists have found.

In a departure from an earlier assessment, the scientists concluded that rising temperatures will have some beneficial effect on crops in some places, but that globally, they will make it harder for crops to thrive.

And, the scientists say, they are already seeing the harmful effects in some regions.

The warnings come in a leaked draft of a report under development by a U.N. panel, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The document is not final and could change before it is released in March.

The report also finds other sweeping impacts from climate change occurring across the planet, and warns that these are likely to intensify as human emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise.

The scientists describe a natural world in turmoil as plants and animals attempt to migrate to escape rising temperatures, and warn that many could become extinct.

The warning on the food supply is the sharpest in tone that the panel has ever issued. Its previous report, in 2007, was more hopeful. While it did warn of risks and potential losses in output, particularly in the tropics, that report found that gains in production at higher latitudes would likely offset the losses and ensure an adequate global supply.

The new tone reflects a large body of research in recent years that has shown how sensitive crops appear to be to heat waves. The recent work also challenges previous assumptions about how much food production could increase in coming decades because of higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. The gas, though it is the main reason for global warming, also acts as a kind of fertilizer for plants.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the principal scientific body charged with reviewing and assessing climate science, then issuing reports about the risks to the world’s governments. Its main reports come out every five to six years.

The group won the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Al Gore, in 2007 for its efforts.

Hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent every year to reduce emissions in response to past findings from the group, though many analysts have said these efforts are inadequate to head off drastic climatic changes later in the century.

On the food supply, the new report finds that benefits from global warming may be seen in some areas, like northern lands that are now marginal for food production. But it adds that overall, global warming could reduce agricultural production by as much as 2 percent each decade for the rest of this century.

During that period, demand is expected to rise as much as 14 percent each decade, the report found, as the world population is projected to grow to 9.6 billion in 2050, from 7.2 billion today, according to the United Nations, and many of those people in developing countries acquire the money to eat richer diets.

Any shortfall would lead to rising food prices that would hit the world’s poor hardest, as has occurred from price increases of recent years. Research has found that climate change, particularly severe heat waves, was a factor in those price spikes.

Climate change will pose sharp risks to the world’s food supply in coming decades, potentially undermining crop production and driving up prices at a time when the demand for food is expected to soar, scientists have found.

In a departure from an earlier assessment, the scientists concluded that rising temperatures will have some beneficial effect on crops in some places, but that globally, they will make it harder for crops to thrive.

And, the scientists say, they are already seeing the harmful effects in some regions.

The warnings come in a leaked draft of a report under development by a U.N. panel, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The document is not final and could change before it is released in March.

The report also finds other sweeping impacts from climate change occurring across the planet, and warns that these are likely to intensify as human emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise.

The scientists describe a natural world in turmoil as plants and animals attempt to migrate to escape rising temperatures, and warn that many could become extinct.

The warning on the food supply is the sharpest in tone that the panel has ever issued. Its previous report, in 2007, was more hopeful. While it did warn of risks and potential losses in output, particularly in the tropics, that report found that gains in production at higher latitudes would likely offset the losses and ensure an adequate global supply.

The new tone reflects a large body of research in recent years that has shown how sensitive crops appear to be to heat waves. The recent work also challenges previous assumptions about how much food production could increase in coming decades because of higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. The gas, though it is the main reason for global warming, also acts as a kind of fertilizer for plants.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the principal scientific body charged with reviewing and assessing climate science, then issuing reports about the risks to the world’s governments. Its main reports come out every five to six years.

The group won the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Al Gore, in 2007 for its efforts.

Hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent every year to reduce emissions in response to past findings from the group, though many analysts have said these efforts are inadequate to head off drastic climatic changes later in the century.

On the food supply, the new report finds that benefits from global warming may be seen in some areas, like northern lands that are now marginal for food production. But it adds that overall, global warming could reduce agricultural production by as much as 2 percent each decade for the rest of this century.

During that period, demand is expected to rise as much as 14 percent each decade, the report found, as the world population is projected to grow to 9.6 billion in 2050, from 7.2 billion today, according to the United Nations, and many of those people in developing countries acquire the money to eat richer diets.

Any shortfall would lead to rising food prices that would hit the world’s poor hardest, as has occurred from price increases of recent years. Research has found that climate change, particularly severe heat waves, was a factor in those price spikes.

If the report proves to be correct about the effect on crops from climate change, global food demand might have to be met — if it can be met — by putting new land into production.

That could entail chopping down large areas of forest, an action that would only accelerate climate change by sending substantial amounts of carbon dioxide into the air from the destruction of trees.

The writer assumes more land can be put into production but this is not really that viable an option. Only 10% of the land surface is arable. Much of the idle land is marginal and has a poor expense to production ratio. Warming will not necessarily make regions such as Canada or Russia more productive. Most of the northern soils are immature. Soils take thousands of years to mature. Soils in the tropics rapidly become laterized when cultivated and correspondingly become sterile in short order. Minnesota climatologists have voiced concerned that the Dakotas and the western part of our state will become more arid. "Desertification" is a word floating about. We are a major agricultural state that stands to have grave impacts from climate shift.

Already the climate is having a dramatic effect on wildlife. Waterfowl migration is month or more later than in the early 90,s Our moose population has declined dramatically due to exposure to heat and parasites that are killed of in the mild winters. Vast areas of the western state's forest have been decimated by the pine bark beetle that have thrived through warmer winters.

[QUOTE]If the report proves to be correct about the effect on crops from climate change, global food demand might have to be met — if it can be met — by putting new land into production.

That could entail chopping down large areas of forest, an action that would only accelerate climate change by sending substantial amounts of carbon dioxide into the air from the destruction of trees.[/
QUOTE]
How much acreage gained if all the vacant homes in Detroit are razed? I think of how Israel has turned desert into useful growing land, and there may be hope for turning more land into arable land.

Sarge, I have no insight on how to help out the moose or other wildlife. Will Mother Nature lead these affected species to change their migrations to different locations? Will moose find their way to new habitats that allow them to maintain their species? Or will certain species be replaced by other variants that are resistant to the habitat changes?

The bottom line, of course, is whether humans have as much control over long-term climate change as we believe ourselves to have. While humans have impacted the planet, I think there is also room for theories that human activities are not the ONLY thing involved in the process.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

What is laterized? I don't think I have ever heard of this term or process.

And, what do you mean by the soils beoming sterile? Do you meen infertile?

Tom

Laterization is a process where exposed soils in the tropics become exposed to high rainfall that leaches out the nutrients in short order leaving silica and iron oxides behind. The soil becomes brick like and is called laterite form the Latin word later for brick. Laterite is so tough it can be used as a building stone.

Sarge, I don't think MN moose are all that different than Alaska or Canada moose in that they are a preferred menu item for hungry wolves. If you guys could get a few bunny huggers and hippies out howling to the wolves out of the way and kill a few hundred more of them every year, you would have more moose.

Sarge, I don't think MN moose are all that different than Alaska or Canada moose in that they are a preferred menu item for hungry wolves. If you guys could get a few bunny huggers and hippies out howling to the wolves out of the way and kill a few hundred more of them every year, you would have more moose.

Moose did perfectly well when there were high wolf numbers through the years. Also Minnesota does have a regular season on wolves.